As for accuracy of the list that's a can of worms I won't touch. The German tank fans won't like the commentary or most of the list I think it's safe to say since it's all German tanks on the "worst" list. Although the Stug made the best list.

I know some historians who would greatly disagree with the best and worst list....

Panther G was an AMAZING tank. Once the engineering faults were dealt with the Panther was considered the best tank of the war in all categories and some even argue it's the world's first MBT.

The Sherman, while easy to mass produce and therefore a lot of historians argue it is the best of the WWII era, was not well protected against the guns of the German army, wouldn't even dent the Soviet late war armor, and couldn't really deal with the German tanks early on in the war.

I know some historians who would greatly disagree with the best and worst list....

Panther G was an AMAZING tank. Once the engineering faults were dealt with the Panther was considered the best tank of the war in all categories and some even argue it's the world's first MBT.

The Sherman, while easy to mass produce and therefore a lot of historians argue it is the best of the WWII era, was not well protected against the guns of the German army, wouldn't even dent the Soviet late war armor, and couldn't really deal with the German tanks early on in the war.

The engineering faults of the Panther such as the poorly designed final drives and transmission? The Rube Goldberg-esque turret drive? The poor fuel economy? The inconsistent steel quality? The turret shot trap that was never fully fixed even with the Ausf. G?

And no, the Panther was not "the best" in all categories. It had worse armor everywhere than other tanks in its weight class and suffered even worse reliability. It also fitted a gun that was more meant for a tank destroyer, not a medium tank. The Panther fails spectacularly as a proto-MBT, as it lacks the mobility and multipurpose firepower. (I personally think the T-34 was the first MBT, as it combined good armor, good mobility and reliability, and a decent gun for the time)

The Sherman had more than enough armor against the most common German AT guns (PaK 38, PaK 40, and able to bounce KwK 36/FlaK 36 rounds at long range). Considering the worst-armored Sherman (1942 production small hatch M4A1's with flawed plate) had 107mm effective and the better examples had upwards of 120mm effective against 75 and 88mm AP rounds, yes, the Sherman was decently armored for its weight. As for your last statement, even with the 75mm it could destroy the most common German armor from upwards of 700-800m, and could punch through the Tiger's side at just under 700m.

Edit: rossmum has a much more thorough thread on the flaws of the Panther, you can read it here

Well there is a re writing of WWII history happening for over a decade now, not surprised. For all its faults I think the T34 and KV1 in 1941 were game changers, took the Germans by surprise. And by the end the JS2 was a tank to be feared. Most of the early war German stuff was crap, only good thing they had were radios and command and control. Panthers and Tigers were great tanks mainly to deal with the new T34s. Each new tank builds upon the last generation as does tactics.

I'm going to say I disagree, not because the tanks were particularly effective... but because for me when I'm looking at these things I prefer to focus on the engineering, which something about the german designs just strikes a cord with me... I love the look of the KT and panther... the boxy shape that somehow still utilizes curves. I also like the look of the guns being more meaty and just making the whole thing look more like a tank. I'm not saying the Sherman or T-34 were bad tanks, they weren't... but personally when I look at a Sherman I simply do not get the same sense of power. though I cannot speak from the perspective of having one of these things baring down on me. I also really like the T34 because it has a similar shape to the german tanks with the sloped hull... but personally I find tanks like the IS and KV series to simply be ugly, they just look too flat and industrial in a sense.

It's a decent list. The Tiger should be ranked better than the Panther, if you ask me-it actually managed to score a positive kill ratio and, as I recall, didn't suffer from as many mechanical problems. It didn't do the job very well for its weight class, but it still generally worked, and for me that makes its inclusion in the list of worst tanks rather questionable.

While I have no problem imagining that the Elefant wasn't a great design, I would have preferred a more in depth explanation. In addition, it saw incredibly limited deployment, and if it's still qualified to place at all, I can't help but think there are probably a number of crackpot vehicles manufactured in the ones to tens that were worse.

Admittedly I don't know much about the IS tank, but if its size and the T-34 is anything to go by, I would guess it'd be seriously cramped with a very low rate of fire. Personally, I'm skeptical that its firepower and armor warrants ranking it above the M4, which I would think would have possessed greatly superior ergonomics while being easier to service and produce.

You do raise an important point. Comparing one tank to another directly isn't both fair, and unbiased (in a sense) as some tanks are specifically built/designed as a reactionary improvement over existing models and threats.

It's a decent list. The Tiger should be ranked better than the Panther, if you ask me-it actually managed to score a positive kill ratio and, as I recall, didn't suffer from as many mechanical problems. It didn't do the job very well for its weight class, but it still generally worked, and for me that makes its inclusion in the list of worst tanks rather questionable.

While I have no problem imagining that the Elefant wasn't a great design, I would have preferred a more in depth explanation. In addition, it saw incredibly limited deployment, and if it's still qualified to place at all, I can't help but think there are probably a number of crackpot vehicles manufactured in the ones to tens that were worse.

Admittedly I don't know much about the IS tank, but if its size and the T-34 is anything to go by, I would guess it'd be seriously cramped with a very low rate of fire. Personally, I'm skeptical that its firepower and armor warrants ranking it above the M4, which I would think would have possessed greatly superior ergonomics while being easier to service and produce.

When i created the list I didn't give them any rankings like what you're describing (e.g. Tiger being lower than the Panther). I listed them in no particular order. Just because the IS-2 is #1 for the best while the Sherman is #2 does not mean anything.